arguments on abortion[W: 246]

[Henrin]

Re: arguments on abortion

Laws aren't brute fact? By that I think you might mean..."they aren't set in concrete". Right?

You wanted to know what changes between prenatal and postnatal. I explained it to you. Prenatals just don't have many rights other than viability assumptions. It's that simple.

I'm not anti-abortion. I believe that a woman has the right to self-determination, liberty...and manage her own body, which includes her health, mentally and physically...and of course reproduction.

Lets not forget your real reason for supporting choice that you shared with the class a page ago.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: arguments on abortion

My question, to someone else originally, was what changes philosophically, not legally. When I say laws are not brute facts I mean they do not just appear and exist without any kind of reason or rationale. It is a piece of sophistry to simply defend a law continued existence by its existence. If someone says we should change law X, it is hardly much of a refutation to say law X is the law.

Alrighty then...Lets have a new beginning...of sorts. We need a starting place..

But...very briefly...to your comments above...

To defend a law....continued existence by its existence is sophistry. Amen to that. So one would might consider to occasionally review or examine laws to ensure reason and logic exist...but as just as important...that is as unbiased as possible. There's actually a process that is used to examine the necessity of laws. I know, surprise, surprise.

In fact, If a person disagrees with a law...then they can simply go through the possible options to have it changed. A single person's quest to do so...might be a bit difficult, but not impossible.

Back to philosophy...

From the following...what philosophical mystery appeals to your curiosity...if anything at all.

Sooo

Paraphrasing some of your earlier posts...

You're questions revolved around...or near the following as I recall:

Oh, I've not read back. So please...correct me if I'm not in the ball park...and I have no doubt that you won't.

YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL DILEMMA:

1) What changes philosophically, in terms of personhood classification, between an embryo to a newly born baby...was somewhere near your originally question????

2) And...something near....is a younger stage of a human ZEF considered to be components...so as to eventually make it to the status of person...???

Something along those lines?

If I'm close enough...then my response would be:

I don't know. What's you're philosophical views on a ZEF in terms of being a person or not? I say I don't know, but I do have an opinion like everybody else. That's not my major concern. My concern is more with a woman's right to call the shots when it comes to terminating a fetus.

That's it for me...back to you.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: arguments on abortion

But let me be clear...if there is ever data that suggest that human extinction is imminent...because of a significant reduction in births....I'll switch sides....on behalf of the "survival of the species".

I won't. For one, no woman should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will. For another, I don't have a burning desire to avoid extinction, if that is what is going to happen. The planet would probably be better off without humans on it.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: arguments on abortion

I won't. For one, no woman should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will. For another, I don't have a burning desire to avoid extinction, if that is what is going to happen. The planet would probably be better off without humans on it.

You might be right...now that you mention it.

Alright...then, you've changed my mind. As we say down south...if humanity starts to become extinct..."Let'er rip tator-chip". It was sorta fun while it lasted, huh?

 

[Henrin]

Re: arguments on abortion

You might be right...now that you mention it.

Alright...then, you've changed my mind. As we say down south...if humanity starts to become extinct..."Let'er rip tator-chip". It was sorta fun while it lasted, huh?

People not having children and the species ending is the species making a choice to no longer have children. Assuming they aren't aborting like crazy to pull this off they doing nothing wrong.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: arguments on abortion

I don't know. What's you're philosophical views on a ZEF in terms of being a person or not? I say I don't know, but I do have an opinion like everybody else. That's not my major concern. My concern is more with a woman's right to call the shots when it comes to terminating a fetus.

Are you saying a woman has this right even if it can be proven as a person? When you say right, in a philosophical sense, are you suggesting their is nothing morally wrong with abortion if it is a person? (leaving aside legal questions of rights).

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: arguments on abortion

Are you saying a woman has this right even if it can be proven as a person? When you say right, in a philosophical sense, are you suggesting their is nothing morally wrong with abortion if it is a person? (leaving aside legal questions of rights).

This is how I feel. Even if the zef were a person, it should not have rights over and above the woman to have it out of her body if she so chooses. No born person can use her body for life support against her will, and no unborn person should be able to either.

 

[Wessexman]

Re: arguments on abortion

This is how I feel. Even if the zef were a person, it should not have rights over and above the woman to have it out of her body if she so chooses. No born person can use her body for life support against her will, and no unborn person should be able to either.

Morally speaking, however, does a person have no obligations to others? Even if we do not enforce through the state?

Is this not a unique circumstance, seeing as we are talking about the child of a woman, who will grow in her womb through a natural consequence of sexual activity?

Do you different someone's literal body from the fruits of their body, that is the money they earn working?

 

[sweet]

Re: arguments on abortion

So you see personhood as made up of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive processes mentioned? If these are damaged later in life is your personhood damaged? As they change later in life, does your personhood change? As the physical building blocks of them are always changing (we are, physically, completely different every few years or so as our cells, or what is in them - to put it in very untechnical terms - wear down and are replaced) are we a completely different person?

What is the child before birth, if not a person? Just what is personhood for you?

I mentioned three key things

1) The ZEF goes from living inside the body of another, and enters the world (we never go back to living within another)

2) The lungs fill with air for the first time. (they never refill with amniotic fluid)

3 )They end their dependency on one individual body (we never again use the body of one individual as life support)


No matter what happens after birth we are persons till death.

There are young & old persons

There are healthy & sick persons

Persons with disabilities, smart persons, dumb persons, funny persons etc..but all persons

We never revert back to being ZEFs

The only time after birth we are no longer person is at death

 

[minnie616]

Re: arguments on abortion

What is the child before birth, if not a person? Just what is personhood for you?

Before birth there is no child/baby/person.
An embryo or pre viable fetus is not a child/baby/ person.
However, a fetus becomes a " potential person" once viability is reached.
The Surpreme Court ruled in Roe vs Wade that the states may take a compelling in abortion once viability is reached and the viaible fetus/ potential person can survive outside the womb with or without medical help. They also ruled that in cases where the woman's life or health was endangered by the pregnancy the states could NOT limit her access to a legal abortion.

 

[minnie616]

Re: arguments on abortion

What is the child before birth, if not a person? Just what is personhood for you?

There is no child before birth.
A fertilized chicken egg is just an egg until it is hatched and becomes a chicken.
Farmers have a saying ....don't count your chickens until they hatched.
The US census only counts born persons. They do count the unborn or even the unborn who have reached viability.
They are not persons until they are born.
I am a mother of 4 grown children. I had 6 pregnancies.
I had two miscarriages between my 2 Ed and 3 rd children.
One was an early miscarriage and the other miscarriage was about 20 weeks gestation.
I went to hospital ER when I went into early labor hoping they could stop the labor and that I would eventually give birth to a Healthy baby. They took a pregnancy test and told me I was no longer pregnant.
My OB was out of town and the OB who was covering for him said he would be in the next day so they gave me meds to try to stop the labor and took me to a ward where four other women had given birth to healthy babies. When I was transferring from the gurney to my bed the fetus was expelled. I accidentally saw it and how deformed it was. My OB told me that even if I carried it longer it never would have been viaible
It was never a baby / child/ person.
It was just a mass of deformed cells.
It was a miscarriage in the making from the time I conceived.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Re: arguments on abortion

Morally speaking, however, does a person have no obligations to others? Even if we do not enforce through the state?

Is this not a unique circumstance, seeing as we are talking about the child of a woman, who will grow in her womb through a natural consequence of sexual activity?

Do you different someone's literal body from the fruits of their body, that is the money they earn working?

An obligation? No. And certainly not if said person is damaging and depleting her body against her will. This is setting aside, of course, that calling a ZEF of person is frankly silly.

Pregnancy is not airy fairy magic rainbows. It's tough, and it's extremely invasive and costly. You seem to have a very fantasized notion of what pregnancy is.

Not even sure what that last sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[JayDubya]

Re: arguments on abortion

The planet would probably be better off without humans on it.

:roll:

You might be right...now that you mention it.

Alright...then, you've changed my mind. As we say down south...if humanity starts to become extinct..."Let'er rip tator-chip". It was sorta fun while it lasted, huh?

Excellent. So you've finally abandoned the stupid pretense that you cared about population levels, when all you care about really is your bigotry towards some humans - that they are lesser entities undeserving of legal protection - being enshrined in law.

Hopefully we need never read such dissembling from you again.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: arguments on abortion

You're the kind of pro-choicer that helped make my decision on my stance easy. Evil bull**** like that should never be said. Period.

Your side should be very very glad soft type pro choicers are willing to place personhood on humans from birth to death while others like myself want it placed somewhere after birth; consider yourself lucky

 

[code1211]

Re: arguments on abortion

I agree, it's obvious if a mother to be wants to have a baby...she can call it anything she likes, but that doesn't legally change the personhood status of a fetus...according to the law. Personhood is gong to have to be Constitutionally designated. As of yet, that simply doesn't exist.

A fetus only has protection under the law as defined by the Supreme Court. And that protection is determined by the viability of any given fetus. If a fetus can live outside of the womb...then it bears some protection under the law. But a woman, who wants an abortion, who believes the fetus not to be viable...could legally challenge the viability of a fetus if she chooses.

The abortion issue is a legal matter way more than a philosophical or moral one.

In the case of the laws of the United States, a person can be convicted of homicide if the unborn baby dies when the murderer also kills the mother.

If the mother had decided to have an abortion, that same unborn person would have have had no protections under the law. Since SHE did not define away the personhood of the baby, the murderer was convicted of a second murder, also.

We have not had this kind of alternating definition of personhood since the days of slavery.

Scott Peterson convicted — History.com This Day in History — 11/12/2004

Finally on this day in 2004, after seven days of deliberation that involved the replacement of two jurors, Scott Peterson was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of his unborn son.

 

[code1211]

Re: arguments on abortion

One big mistake I see lifers do is attempt to assign personhood based on the nature of a creature :lol:

You have your two types of Choicers

The soft type Choicers who would place personhood at birth for humans. This is the most common position taking but

Then you have your hard type choicers like myself who are not convinced personhood should be placed on humans based on location change

For me an entity must be able to have desires,plans, and goals anticipating a future of some sort; Looking at life in a biographical sense and plot out what it wants to do in 2 days, next month, etc

By your definition, half of the folks in your average corner bar are not people.

 

[minnie616]

Re: arguments on abortion

In the case of the laws of the United States, a person can be convicted of homicide if the unborn baby dies when the murderer also kills the mother.

If the mother had decided to have an abortion, that same unborn person would have have had no protections under the law. Since SHE did not define away the personhood of the baby, the murderer was convicted of a second murder, also.

We have not had this kind of alternating definition of personhood since the days of slavery.

Scott Peterson convicted — History.com This Day in History — 11/12/2004

Finally on this day in 2004, after seven days of deliberation that involved the replacement of two jurors, Scott 'Peterson was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of his unborn son.

Those feticide laws are state laws. Roe vs. Wade is a federal law.
Federal laws over rule state laws therefore the state laws had to add the part that excludes legal abortion or the state feticide laws would have been stricken down.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: arguments on abortion

In the case of the laws of the United States, a person can be convicted of homicide if the unborn baby dies when the murderer also kills the mother.

If the mother had decided to have an abortion, that same unborn person would have have had no protections under the law. Since SHE did not define away the personhood of the baby, the murderer was convicted of a second murder, also.

We have not had this kind of alternating definition of personhood since the days of slavery.

Scott Peterson convicted — History.com This Day in History — 11/12/2004

Finally on this day in 2004, after seven days of deliberation that involved the replacement of two jurors, Scott Peterson was convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of his unborn son.

An act of murder on a pregnant woman...in which a fetus also dies...is under federal law. But it has nothing to do with constitutionally creating personhood status of the fetus.

 

[Henrin]

Re: arguments on abortion

Your side should be very very glad soft type pro choicers are willing to place personhood on humans from birth to death while others like myself want it placed somewhere after birth; consider yourself lucky

Yes, that is a nice crazy view. However, I'm not really interested in talking about it.

 

[code1211]

Re: arguments on abortion

Those feticide laws are state laws. Roe vs. Wade is a federal law.
Federal laws over rule state laws therefore the state laws had to add the part that excludes legal abortion or the state feticide laws would have been stricken down.

Scott Peterson was convicted long after Roe V Wade.

 

[Henrin]

Re: arguments on abortion

An act of murder on a pregnant woman...in which a fetus also dies...is under federal law. But it has nothing to do with constitutionally creating personhood status of the fetus.

So why was he charged with two murders??

 

[code1211]

Re: arguments on abortion

An act of murder on a pregnant woman...in which a fetus also dies...is under federal law. But it has nothing to do with constitutionally creating personhood status of the fetus.

Can anything that dies be murdered if that thing is NOT a person?

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/murder.htm

Murder is a homicide crime defined as the intentional killing of one human being by another with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a state of mind, or intent, requirement that makes a homicide a murder. It is this state of mind that differentiates murder from other types of criminal homicide like voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Re: arguments on abortion

So why was he charged with two murders??

Because the mother had not redefined the personhood of the fetus to a tissue mass.

Had the murder never occurred and had the mother decided to abort the unborn, that personhood would have been defined away.

We have a struggle with this issue both in our common societal mind and in our collective legal or case law mind.

 

[calamity]

Re: arguments on abortion

Because the mother had not redefined the personhood of the fetus to a tissue mass.

Had the murder never occurred and had the mother decided to abort the unborn, that personhood would have been defined away.

We have a struggle with this issue both in our common societal mind and in our collective legal or case law mind.

This is actually true. And, I suspect, it is the men who have the most difficulty digesting it.

Bottom line: Women are in charge of their reproductive system. It sux for most men that they can't control that system. So, they whine about stupid details in the abortion debate. Tough. Let them buy some cheese with that whine. The reproductive system belongs to women.

 

[Henrin]

Re: arguments on abortion

Because the mother had not redefined the personhood of the fetus to a tissue mass.

Had the murder never occurred and had the mother decided to abort the unborn, that personhood would have been defined away.

Exactly. As long as the mother doesn't abort for some reason the state sees the child as a person, but if she decides to abort this goes right out the window. I just love how we as a society has allowed people to define if other people are important or not.

We have a struggle with this issue both in our common societal mind and in our collective legal or case law mind.

I would say so.

Mother gets killed with child = two murder charges
Mother kills her child = ok

What??